[MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ

[David M]

Ian

I know, just trying to keep the conversation going to
see how far the agreement goes.

Certainly the creation of hypotheses is key to science,
and very much an art. Whereas expt is that special means
science has to create more consensus than the other
ologies can.

DM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 3:47 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ


> David I think you may miss my point. I was agreeing with you.
> 
> Science does only a small part of it's work by controlled experiment.
> It's the bit that distinguishes science from other ologies, granted,
> it is the essense of scientific method, which accounts for 80% of the
> drudgery in scientific experimentation to disprove hypotheses. A lot
> of this is automated where possible to relieve the drudgery and avoid
> "accidental" values creeping in. We agree, on this, the obvious
> GOF-SOMist stuff.
> 
> The important thing people forget is that this is only 20% of science
> itself. The important bit (the real 80%) of science is evolving
> hypotheses that (a) explain and (b) preferably are testable. That's
> the clever bit, the quality bit, that for some reason philosophers
> seem to thing is a field reserved for them to the exclusion of other
> plebs like scientists. Must I quote Max Born again ?
> 
> Ian
> 
> On 1/2/06, David M <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> Ian
>>
>> I think it is important, in this area, to remember that science
>> does a lot of its work via controlled experiment. The whole point,
>> but also necessary limitation, of controlled experiments is that they
>> produce conditions that do not actually occur in nature, specifically
>> repeatable, and devoid of DQ, unlike naturally uncontrolled reality.
>>
>> DM
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
>> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>> Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 12:11 PM
>> Subject: Re: [MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ
>>
>>
>> > David - one point inserted below on this one ...
>> >
>> > (Otherwise mostly covered by my latest response to Scott. -
>> > Complaining about me calling things "physical" is the same lingusitic
>> > problem as me objecting to Scott using the word "material". Just
>> > words. Let's agree what we're talking about and choose the words later
>> > - my favourites are "quality" and "nature", but I'm not a betting
>> > man.)
>> >
>> > On 12/30/05, David M <davidint at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> Hi Ian
>> >>
>> >> I do not entirely object to this approach but care and
>> >> caution is required. My main problem is that much of
>> >> experience/life is never repeated and therefore not easy for
>> >> science to describe and not very useful for science to do so.
>> >
>> > [IG] Absolutely. Which is why I continually say that (a pragmatic,
>> > useful) science, called physics or nature, is something much more than
>> > repeatable, predictable, objective testing of hypotheses. I'm nothing
>> > if not consistent. Science needs the MoQ.
>> >
>> >> No SQ can be described or identified, there is more disorder
>> >> than order to be experienced. I take the emergence on new forms
>> >> to be characterised as the reduction of many possible actuals to
>> >> just one. For example life on this planet has gone down a carbon
>> >> based route rather than one of many other possibilities.
>> >>
>> >> My other point would be that science has generally been about
>> >> describing the patterns of actual experience, i.e patterns that exist
>> >> in space-time. But quantum theory does seem to require the use
>> >> of patterns of possibles rather than actuals to describe what is able
>> >> to become actual. This opens up vast territories of the possible,
>> >> the imagined, that seem have an influence on what becomes actual,
>> >> that science now needs to explore, and I think calling these physical
>> >> is misleading. Mathematics via imagination and creativity
>> >> is of course crucially involved in this exploration of the
>> >> non-physical possible.
>> >>
>> >> DM
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "ian glendinning" <psybertron at gmail.com>
>> >> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
>> >> Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2005 11:53 AM
>> >> Subject: Re: [MD] MD Quality, DQ and SQ
>> >>
>> > moq_discuss mailing list
>> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> > Archives:
>> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>> >
>> moq_discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>>
> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>